Despite this fact, I would state my agreement with the statute based on objective arguments culled from empirical evidence and not because of some emotional bias and the influence of popular sentiment.
To understand my standpoint, it is imperative for us to explore the rationale behind the chemical castration.
Here, using drugs such as the Depo-Provera or the Tamoxifen, the law seeks to prevent sexual molestation by inhibiting hormones that produces the testosterone or the aromatase enzyme in male offenders. The idea is that when the sexual urge in the offenders are lessened it is expected that the likelihood of committing the crime again is also reduced.
The Megan’s Law has been the statute that we relied on to keep our children safe from child molesters. The statute requires the identification of sex offenders publicly mainly for preventive purposes. Unfortunately, as years passed statistics reflected a disturbing experience as the logistical demands of enforcing the law is difficult for state governments. A 1998 federal court ruling in New York is one of such illustrations. Here, the state is required to provide the court with the determination of the risk level identification of sex offenders. However, by 2004 the huge number of cases that needed hearing in line with such directive created an unwieldy backlog and in an attempt to fast track the hearings, the risk levels of all offenders were reduced to Level 1, the lowest risk level. (Schultz, p. 185) The effect is that justice is delayed and there is a risk of error in its dispensation.